Two Weeks, One Year and Three Years

 

The week following the Orlando massacre was rough for me. The slaughter of 49 of my gay brothers and sisters and the injuring of another 52 more two weeks ago today passed relatively unnoticed at our embassy, and I found that personally devastating. Our Ambassador, whose leadership I greatly admire, was out of town. And consequently, we didn't have a condolence book. We were told at country team that we could have one if we wanted but that the Charge' didn't have strong feelings about it.

I nearly walked out of country team.

I am sure no harm was meant by the comment, but it harmed me. And perhaps anyone else who was LGBT, or had LGBT family or friends, or who had been touched by gun violence, or who just cared that their fellow Americans were mowed down by a madman able to get an assault rifle.

And then I had to fight to get our local LGBT activists to be ALLOWED to have a memorial vigil at the embassy. To be ALLOWED to light 49 candles for those who were lost. I was devastated all over again.

But several healing things happened since then. First, we did have the memorial. Not at the embassy like they wanted, but at least at USAID and not downtown away from the embassy. And it was really touching.

And then our Ambassador returned, and told us how sad he had been not to be with us when that happened. And how awful what had happened was and how he knew how hard it was to be so far away when this happened. And how we were lucky, because we were in a position to serve the country and to help make the U.S. and the world a better place.

And that helped a lot.

And so today I am celebrating. Because today I am reminded that it has been three years to the day since the Supreme Court ruled that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
This is what I wrote about it at the time:

"We were on vacation in Norway when the ruling was first announced. I had been waiting for it for what seemed like an eternity. I expected it to come at 10 am Washington time on Wednesday, and it did, but I had not told my wife that this was when we would hear. She had already chastised me for watching SCOTUSblog over the past few weeks for fear I would jinx it. So I watched the clock anxiously that day and never told her I was watching the clock.

We got back into our hotel room around 4:20, or 10:20 DC time, and I immediately jumped on Facebook to see what had happened. She sat on the bed, and did the same thing, only she wasn't looking for the results. She thought we would hear the next day, because she thought the rulings were issued at the end of the day. As tears welled up in my eyes, I heard her say, "Wait, what? Did they? No..."

I said, "Honey, we are full citizens."

I didn't get up...I didn't want her to see me crying...and then she came over to me, tears streaming down her face. Neither of us had expected to cry. She had expected them to rule against us...and I had figured they would do what they did but was at the same time afraid to hope for it. I expected I would scream or dance or both.

But we both cried together. Together, apparently, with thousands of other LGBT people who felt finally accepted by their country. Who felt they were finally full citizens. Within minutes, I saw several proposals online, including one from one of my closest friends to her partner of more than 20 years. They had always considered themselves married, and she asked if her partner if she would now marry her legally. Of course she said yes. And I cried again.

What this means for us is that we no longer have to worry about being allowed to make medical decisions for each other. We never have to worry about being able to claim the other's body for burial should the unthinkable happen. We can inherit each other's property and pensions without paying inheritance taxes. We are no longer legal strangers."

One year later, I wrote about the astounding changes that had happened in that time. Marriage bans across the country were dropping like flies. We were able to go about our lives and do everything exactly the way other married couples do. And when we moved to our new house in Maryland, and went to go get our driver's licenses, one clerk accepted our mortgage document as proof of residence for my wife but not the same one as proof for me. When I went over to her at the window where she was to get the proof of car registration from her to use as proof since my mortgage paper wouldn't work, the clerk said, "Aren't you married?" When we said yes, the clerk said, "oh then she can vouch for your residency." So, yay bureaucracy?

And then a year after that, the unthinkable happened. On the two year anniversary of the Windsor decision finding DOMA unconstitutional. SCOTUS found ALL marriage bans unconstitutional.

We were finally full citizens. And I subsequently asked anyone who didn't respect my right to marriage to unfriend me, on Facebook or in real life.  But I added this:


"But before you do, I ask you to consider how you would feel if your spouse was hospitalized and weren't allowed in the room? I don't have to imagine. I have experienced it.

How would you feel if your spouse died, and you weren't allowed to bury him or her because you were a legal stranger and the law required immediate family to claim the body, even if that person was someone your spouse hated? What if you weren't allowed at the funeral? I have friends who experienced this after 20 or more years together.

How would you feel if you lost your home because your spouse died and you had to pay inheritance tax on "their half" of your home. It has happened to many gay people.

Civil marriage brings some 1,300 rights and responsibilities. Wills don't cover it. And some states could ignore even wills. And medical powers of attorney. It happened, a lot.

And hopefully it won't any more.

So maybe you still have religious beliefs that oppose marriage equality. Fine. But you don't get the right to impose those beliefs on others. Because you know what? My church believes in marriage equality. We were married in the church.

Think marriage is a Judeo-Christian ideal? Then why can atheists marry?

Think it is for procreation? Then why can the elderly and the infertile marry?

They can, because just as was determined in Loving v Virginia in 1967, marriage is about love, and it is a civil right.

And before you worry that this means your church will be required to marry gay people, it won't. A Catholic priest is not forced to marry non-Catholics. A rabbi is not forced to marry Christians. In fact, when we got married in our church, our pastor had just refused to marry a couple because they did not want to go through the required premarital counseling. Churches will still get to decide what is right for them, Just not for everyone else.

So please celebrate with me, because for the first time, I feel like a full citizen. I feel like the country that I serve, that I have kept faith with, has finally kept faith with me.

And I want to close with this, Justice Kennedy's eloquent final paragraph in the 5-4 ruling:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered. "

Orlando has demonstrated that we still have a ways to go. There is still so much hate in the world. But I think we are heading in the right direction. So while I still mourn, while I am still shaken over and attack that happened in a "safe place," I celebrate that we are on the right path.

And I need no further proof of that than that the Charleston Post and Courier in my home state of South Carolina, where they fought to avoid accepting marriage equality, reported yesterday that one year later, same-sex marriage is simply "routine."

One Year

One year ago today, while my wife and I were on vacation in Norway, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

The moment we heard is still vivid in my mind.

Here is some of what I wrote at the time:

"I had been waiting for the ruling for what seemed like an eternity. I expected it to come at 10 am Washington time on June 26th, but I had not told my wife that this was when the ruling was expected because she had already chastised me for watching SCOTUSblog the few weeks prior for fear I would jinx it. I watched the clock anxiously that day and never told her I was watching the clock.

We got back into our hotel room around 4:20, or 10:20 DC time, and I immediately jumped on Facebook to see what had happened. She sat on the bed, and did the same thing, only she wasn't looking for the results. She thought we would hear the next day, because she thought the rulings were issued at the end of the day. As tears welled up in my eyes, I heard her say, "Wait, what? Did they? No..."

I said, "Honey, we are full citizens."

I didn't get up...I didn't want her to see me crying...and then she came over to me, tears streaming down her face. Neither of us had expected to cry. She had expected them to rule against us...and I had figured they would do what they did but was at the same time afraid to hope for it. I expected I would scream or dance or both.

But we both cried together. Together, apparently, with thousands of other LGBT people who felt finally accepted by their country. Who felt they were finally full citizens. Within minutes, I saw several proposals online, including one from one of my closest friends to her partner of more than 20 years. They had always considered themselves married, and she asked if her partner if she would now marry her legally. Of course she said yes. And I cried again."

Just reading the words I wrote a year ago (okay, a year and four days, because I couldn't post very well from my ipad), brings tears to my eyes again.

Since the decision, every single ruling in the country, some 22 or 24 I think, has gone in favor of marriage equality. Two more state bans were found to be unconstitutional just yesterday. There is now marriage equality in 19 states plus DC, and every single state has either had their ban declared unconstitutional or has a pending lawsuit. EVERY. STATE.

In that time, we have purchased a home in Maryland and established residency there. Next month, we will move into our home there for the first time. Virginia, which continues to not recognize our marriage, has lost thousands of dollars in income taxes just from us. And we know we are not alone. (It also meant filing a bazillion tax returns...okay, six I think, including fake federal ones listing us as single for our Virginia taxes and real joint federal ones...plus hiring an accountant for the first time).

The changes in society have been dramatic. A majority of Americans now support marriage equality, including 50% in my beloved South. When getting insurance for a property we have in South Carolina, the agent asked if I was married, I said yes and gave her my wife's info, and she said she didn't think they would recognize our marriage...and that she was sorry because that was simply unfair!

Changes I made to our insurance and such at work and with our mortgages were simple. I had only to tell them we were married. I got not one single negative response. And my friends with foreign born spouses are having their lives changed even more dramatically. Several of my friends are newly-minted Americans because their marriages are finally recognized. I can't even describe how happy I am for them, because their struggles were always so much greater than ours.

There are still some changes that need to be made. Some agencies are still bound to recognize marriages based on places of residence rather than of ceremony, meaning that some couples living in non-equality states are still not getting social security and veterans benefits they are entitled to.

But at least now, we no longer have to worry about being allowed to make medical decisions for each other. We never have to worry about being able to claim the other's body for burial should the unthinkable happen. We can inherit each other's property and pensions without paying inheritance taxes. We are no longer legal strangers.

And when people ask now if we are married, the answer is a simple yes, without qualifications.

Secretary Kerry Calls Discrimination Against Global LGBT "An Affront to Every Reasonable Conscience"

We have been really fortunate lately with our Secretaries of State, particularly from an LGBT perspective.

Secretary Clinton was obviously a rock star and from day one, wanted to do what she could to make the lives of LGBT people around the world better. And she was willing to start at home, with her own diplomats. And let me tell you, life is better for the changes we made.

And then we got our current Secretary of State, John Kerry. Secretary Kerry was an ally when it wasn't cool to be an ally. He was one of the the few, and the only one up for re-election at the time, who voted against the now defunct so-called Defense of Marriage Act. That took guts.

What he is doing now takes guts too. We are seeing a lot of backlash against LGBT people as a result of the Supreme Court overturning parts of DOMA. A flurry of laws have been considered (and thankfully dispatched, if not for the right reasons) under the guise of defending religious freedom. (And if you  think your religious freedom is being interfered with by my right to marry, please read this.)

Abroad, worse things are happening. In Uganda, they have passed a law making it illegal for being gay. You can go to jail for life for the crime of who you are and who you love. You can also be thrown in jail for not reporting a family (so to the family member I unfriended on Facebook last night for his snarky comments about world response to this law, I guess you would happily turn me in and see me serve life in prison.)

So in light of this law, I am really happy to see that Secretary Kerry is responding to this and all of the laws targeting LGBT people by saying we are going to focus on combating discrimination against LGBT across the globe.

He gets it.

During a press conference on the release of our annual Human Rights Report, he said the law in Uganda and those in some 80 countries around the globe, from Nigeria to Russia to Iran, are "an affront to every reasonable conscience."

And then he said:

“You could change the focus of this legislation to black or Jewish, and you could be in 1930s Germany, or you could be in 1950s or ’60s apartheid South Africa,” Kerry said during a roundtable interview with reporters Wednesday. “It was wrong there, egregiously, in both places, and it is wrong here.”

Exactly.

And thank you.

Quite a Year

A wedding happened yesterday.

Such a wonderful, ordinary thing.

Except that it was two men getting married. Legally. In Utah.

Yesterday I shared this picture on Facebook, courtesy of Freedom to Marry.

It really illustrates what an extraordinary year this has been for marriage equality.

In one year, eight states (EIGHT!) have been added to the number of states with marriage equality. LGBT people can now legally marry in seventeen states. And more importantly, the Supreme Court on June 26 overturned a key portion of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, meaning marriages in those states are legal in the eyes of the federal government. Meaning my marriage was legal federally and my friends who had married non-Americans could apply for their spouses to become American. And some of them are already in the process of doing so. Deportations of legal spouses stopped. And my friends serving this country could plan to come home when they retire, home to the country they love with the spouse they love.

And now, a majority of Americans support the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

Quite a year indeed.

And then I woke this morning to discover that the picture I shared last night was wrong.

Because last night, Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriages was found by the court to violate the U.S. Constitution. 

(Which is huge, because it could ultimately result in the overturning of all of the constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. According the to article:

"[Judge] Shelby writes the issue of same-sex marriage is “politically charged in the current climate” and more so because the current law is in place as a result of referendum. However, Shelby rules that even a vote of the people can’t defy the U.S. Constitution.

“It is only under exceptional circumstances that a court interferes with such action,” Shelby writes. “But the legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah’s laws were the result of its legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins. The question presented here depends instead on the Constitution itself, and on the interpretation of that document contained in binding precedent from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

The judge concludes by drawing on the 1966 case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage throughout the country, saying the defense in favor of these bans 50 years ago is the same the state provided for Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago,” Shelby writes. “Anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utah’s Amendment 3 achieves the same result.”")

And that court ruled there would be no stay, and LGBT people could marry immediately.

And one hour later, two men were married in Utah.

A simple, ordinary, beautiful, wonderful thing. In Utah.

The 18th state!

Once again, love wins.

Post DOMA update

There have been a couple of articles that I wanted to share with you about how we are chipping away at inequality.

The first is from the Social Security Administration, which according to an article in the Washington Blade, is now processing claims for death benefits for legally married same-sex spouses.

IF

...they are in a marriage equality state. Those not in a marriage equality state are having their applications put on hold.

You might remember some months ago they announced that they would process retirement benefits for legally-married same-sex spouses. This moves that process along to include death benefits.

Of course, in the land where separate is not equal, those in civil unions or domestic partnerships need not apply.

Second is an article this week in Huffington Post on what the DOMA ruling means for legally-married same-sex couples.

There are lots of ways where this ruling will save folks money. And couples are allowed to re-file for their returns from the last three years if that will result in a higher refund for them.

I don't think it will make much difference for us since we earn very similar salaries. But man do I wish that option had been around when I was still in grad school and my wife was working!

What it does mean for us though is that my days of doing our taxes are done. With property in three states, two of which don't have marriage equality, so having to file jointly for federal and one state and separately for the other...it makes my head hurt thinking about it.

And finally, I just wanted to share with you a link from Time magazine. They nominated Edith Windsor as a runner-up for their person of the year. I personally think she should have won. Her case, which resulted in DOMA being struck down, has certainly affected my life personally in many profound ways. 

Take time to watch both videos. 

They are beautiful. 

Love won.

So Much DOMA News!

It is like every time I look at Facebook, I see something else related to the demise of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

Much of it is good news. Just the other day, the IRS announced that it would recognize the place of celebration rather than the place of residence for filing income taxes. That means that even if my wife and I were still residents of Virginia, we could file our federal taxes as married.

But of course, we'd still have to file our state taxes separately. I predict some headaches where that is concerned.

Health and Human Services announced that all beneficiaries in private Medicare plans have access to equal coverage when it comes to care in a nursing home where their spouse lives. New Mexico counties willing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples are popping up like popcorn. Some in Pennsylvania too. The Secretary for Veterans Affairs announced that same-sex spouses would NOT be eligible for benefits, and a federal judge promptly issued an injunction. Even my beloved home state of South Carolina is getting sued to recognize a couple's legal marriage!

But it is not all good news.

The Texas National Guard is still refusing to extend benefits to married same-sex couples despite a Pentagon directive to do so.

And there are still challenges for some of us serving abroad. An article in the Washington Post talks about some of those challenges, such as dealing with antiquated Status of Forces agreements that don't recognize marriage equality. One married couple in Japan is unable to live together because they can't get a visa for the non-employee husband. And work-arounds have proven too cumbersome.

Even for those of us in the State Department, which has been the most forward-leaning of the federal agencies thanks in no small part to the efforts of former Secretary of State Clinton, sometimes have problems. Only about a quarter of the posts where we serve will give diplomatic visas to same-sex spouses of Foreign Service personnel. In the rest, we have to come up with work arounds of be separated for as long as three years. And how hard to push a country to recognize a relationship and give diplomatic status to a spouse can depend on everything from unrelated political issues to the willingness of the leadership at post to be helpful.

My wife and I have been lucky. We have had excellent Ambassadors who recognized our marriage. And even if we hadn't, because we are both officers, we come with our own diplomatic immunity. So we don't have to rely on a country's willingness to recognize our marriage in order to be together (we just have to be able to get tandem assignments...but that is a whole other issue that doesn't relate to our being a same-sex couple as much as to our being married employees...we share that headache with our straight tandem-couple colleagues!).

Did I mention it is bidding season....

Anyway, it seems like each day brings a new thing to be thankful for even if each week shows us there are still battles to be fought.

And they will be fought. And won.

And This Is Why We Are Moving To Maryland...

After the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, certain benefits were extended to married same-sex couples regardless of their state of residence. President Obama said at the time that there were two possible standards for determining marital status, place of residence and place of ceremony. he hoped that the latter definition would be used, extending marital protections to legally married couples regardless of where they currently reside.

And this is in fact the standard many agencies have been using. For example, the State Department recently began issuing visas to married same-sex couples, and DHS stopped deportation proceedings against legal spouses regardless of their state of residence.

But an article in the Washington Blade demonstrates that this is not what is happening for every agency.

For example, the Social Security Administration is putting a hold on applications where the applicants do not live in a state with marriage equality. Likewise, married couples will still have to pay state inheritance taxes should one spouse die if they live in a state without marriage equality. And the family medical leave act may not apply to couples who don't live in marriage equality states.

All of these issues can be dealt with by a simple policy change, and hopefully it will happen soon. But it isn't there yet. This affects us directly. We are currently residents of Virginia, which has a constitutional ban on our marriage. So if I died, my wife couldn't claim my body and make burial decisions for me. She would have to pay inheritance taxes on our home, and she would not be able to claim my social security.

And this is why we are moving to Maryland. With any luck, we will close on our new home in a couple weeks and soon thereafter be able to establish Maryland residency. And Virginia will have lost two taxpayers.

And we are the lucky ones. Because we work for an agency based in D.C., it is easy for us to say fine, we will just move across the border. Others aren't so lucky. Their jobs tie them to place, whether by virtue of being unable to work at the same job in another location or unable to afford to move.

We need to fix this for them. For the country. So we can all be full citizens.

House Hunter Overseas Part II

So we were done. Void the contract and walk away done.

We'd had the home inspection, and there were some issues that needed to be addressed. The seller had already told us he wanted to sell "as is." So our option was to suck up the repairs or void the contract.

We offered him a last chance to negotiate. Because the house is cool, but this is business. It isn't emotional, it is an investment. So if he wasn't going work with us on the price, we had no reason to bother. There are plenty other fish, er houses, in the sea.

And he said no dice.

So we told him we were walking. We voided the contract and cancelled the loan. We were out.

And then tonight, he had his agent call our agent.

Would be interested if he cut the price by $20,000?

So now we are back in.

Of course, there is still the radon and termite tests. Oh and the appraisal.

So it isn't a done deal. But we are a little closer to turning this little sunny spot into a garden.

And a little closer to being residents of a state where we are full citizens. That part I am emotional about.

House Hunting Overseas

You might think that with the US Supreme Court's having found the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, everything would be all hunky dory now, right?

Wrong.

You see, my wife and I are Virginia residents. We have been considering moving to Maryland, which has state marriage equality, for a while now. In fact, one of the first things she said to me after we heard the court's ruling was, "Okay, you can buy a house in Maryland now."

It isn't just about not wanting to continue paying taxes to a state that chooses to discriminate against us, though that is certain part of it. But it is also that the states can still do nasty things to us. Like, for example, not allowing us to make burial decisions for our legal spouse.

So we are house hunting in the Silver Springs/Takoma Park area. From half a planet away.

A friend who recently departed from post to spend a year on LWOP (leave without pay) recently did the same thing and bought a place in Colorado. Where she had never even visited. And I thought she was nuts.

And now we are doing it.

I have been searching online using MRIS Homes, looking a pictures, schools, location, etc. Then I am using google street view to "walk" the neighborhood (oh look, is that a crack house next door? I didn't see THAT in the pictures they posted! And seriously, I think some of these houses were on Curb Appeal before being listed!). Then I look at Zillow to get even more stats, including most recent sales prices of the home I am looking at, the estimated values of all the nearby homes and what recent homes there have sold for.

Once I have done all that, sometimes watch for a couple days. Homes prices well are moving in a few days. Homes that are over priced, even just a little, will often sit. And I am a bargain hunter, so I look for places where I can perhaps get it for less than asking, like in places where people have gotten no offers because they priced it poorly. And finally, I ask the realtor to take a look. She has even made walk-through videos for me.

We have already put on offer in on a place. Of course, we first had the realtor go and make a video walk through. And then we had a friend go by and walk through it again (thanks again, A!).

We are much less emotional than when we bought our first home together. We are not Property Virgins. We know how this works. We have already countered their counter offer. We know we may not get this place, and that is okay. We like it but don't love it. Nor do we need to love it. It isn't our retirement home (we will probably build that anyway). We have certain things we are looking for: a certain number of beds and baths, a yard, near the metro. It needs to be rentable when we are overseas. This property meets all of that and is cute too, but the seller is a personal representative on behalf of an estate, and for what seem like more emotional than practical reasons, isn't budging as much as I had hoped.

And even though this isn't personal, it is just an investment, I now know what my friend R felt like waiting for a response. Because it IS a big decision. Knots in your stomach don't begin to describe it. And the time difference doesn't help...sure, go ahead and try to fall asleep when the response will come in at maybe 6 pm their time, which is 1 am here.

So we shall see. We have a year before we will likely be back in the states, and we still don't know whether that will be for a tour or just for language training (blech...bidding....). A lot can happen in that time. We could buy a house. Or not. Virginia could adopt marriage equality (I really wish they would...I seriously love Northern Virginia). Or not.

In the meantime, I will try to focus on other major life decisions. Like bidding.

Blech. Think I will look at more houses.

Training My Replacement

I haven't written much lately.

A big reason for that is that I am a bundle of nerves waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Their ruling on DOMA and Prop 8 is due this month.

I now know that the Supreme Court issues opinions on Mondays and sometimes Thursdays, at 10 am eastern (5 pm here). I also know that SCOTUSblog has a live chat when they are releasing opinions that is run by their law clerks. AND, I now know that watching that chat ticker gives me heart palpiations. One of the Facebook groups I follow has started using the hashtags #tiredofwaiting and #mightvomit.

Yeah, that.

So as a respite from that, since there won't be any rulings over the weekend, I thought I would tell you about today at work.

It was Take Your Child (And Pet) to work day. Lots of the embassy parents brought in their kids, and at least five of us, including the Ambassador, brought in our dogs. Sorry cat people...no one brought in kitties.

For PA's part, we did interviews with the kids, asking them things like what they liked about Tallinn. We are going to hopefully have some footage to use for a post video project we are going to have our two summer interns working on together with the CLO.

The CLO also told people to take pictures of their pets at work for a photo contest, and I am totally going to win (and not just because I have the cutest dog on the planet).

Extra bonus: She can now serve as embassy spokesperson in case I need to go on vacation!

Looking Forward

I said before that I was optimistic about the term of Secretary Kerry because he is one of us. He was raised as a Foreign Service brat because his dad was a diplomat. So in many ways, he gets us more than someone from outside the Service might.

But his exit from the Senate Sunday gave me another reason to be optimistic. In his closing remarks, he said:

"We've made huge strides in turning the page on gay rights. In 1993, I testified before Strom Thurmond's Armed Services Committee pushing to lift the ban on gays serving in the military, and I ran into a world of misperceptions. I thought I was on a Saturday Night Live skit. Today at last, that policy is gone forever, and we are a country that honors the commitment of all who are willing to fight and die for our country. We've gone from a Senate that passed DOMA over my objections to one that just welcomed its first openly gay senator."

You can watch the video here.

Washington Post gets it wrong

For the second time this week, the Washington Post has gotten it way wrong.

Not content with an unsigned editorial earlier in the week on the topic of their error, today they offered a signed editorial (I'll post the link once I find it...it is in the print edition today) saying basically the same thing.

Which is, that Human Rights Campaign and others bullied the law firm house Speaker Boehner selected to defend the so-called Defense of Marriage Act after the President and Justice Department decided to stop wasting taxpayer money to defend an unconstitutional law.

Apparently the post thinks that it is bullying not to reward a firm that takes a stand you don't believe it. (And let's not even discuss the inflamatory use of bullying here at a time when we have an epidemic of gay kids killing themselves because of bullying, because laws like DOMA reinforce to them and to the real bullies that they are second class citizens).

I, and HRC no doubt, believe in everyone's right to representation in court. Even the slimiest criminal has a right to a defense.

However, do you think that a firm defending a member of the Klan should get a civil rights award? I don't.

And I don't think a firm defending DOMA should get a top score from HRC's equality index.

And if my lawyer were defending such a law, I'd want to be told, so I could take my business elsewhere.

And this is what HRC did...they told the firms LGBT clients, via social media, what the firm was doing. And they declined to continue to give the firm a high score on their equality index.

That isn't bullying. That is taking your money and spending it with those who support you.

A Letter from my Congressman

David Price (D-NC) regularly makes me happy that he is my representative. He did again yesterday when he sent me the following letter:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3567, the Respect for Marriage Act. I am pleased to report that I am a cosponsor of this legislation.

As you know, in 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage and grants each state the authority to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states. H.R. 3567 would repeal DOMA, effectively extending federal recognition and benefits to all married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation. The legislation also would require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

I believe DOMA is discriminatory, and I will continue working for enactment of the Respect for Marriage Act in the 111th Congress.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep in touch on issues of concern.

Sincerely,
DAVID PRICE
Member of Congress

Reflections of the Decade

As the decade draws to a close, like many others, I've been thinking about everything that has transpired over the past 10 years.

For me personally, just over a month before the beginning of the decade, I started seeing M. In 2002, she joined the Foreign Service, and before she left for Azerbaijan, we were married in our church. In 2004, I followed her into the Foreign Service, and in 2005, we bought our first home together. From 2005-2007, we served together in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem was hard, and we came back to DC to leave the service, but landed in jobs that made us decide to stay. While we were here, we were able to be party to the negotiations for benefits to address the inequities faced by Foreign Service families. And thanks to the benefits Secretary Clinton extended to us, M and I are now an official tandem couple.

Last month, on our tenth anniversary together, M and I made the trek to Massachusetts and were legally married.

So this decade has brought me to the love of my life, good jobs in a weak economy, legal marriage, and two of our four pets. I have no complaints. And we have a great onward assignment, so I am optimistic about the next decade.

Gays and lesbians have made some gains in the past decade. For the first time, we have legal marriage in five states. Domestic partnerships and civil unions in others. Barring Congressional interference, DC, which already recognizes marriages from other states, will join the march toward marriage equality. We have made other advances as well, but they have been uneven, and there is so much more to be done.

Let's hope in the next year, we see more significant advances in equality, like the passage of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And that before the end of the next decade, we see the repeal DOMA and see gays and lesbians live in full equality throughout the U.S.

Opposite-sex partners in the Foreign Service Want Benefits Too

This should come as no surprise to anyone. But here is the one thing unwed heterosexual couples seem to dismiss. They CAN get married. And as soon as they do, they get all the rights afforded same-sex couples and then some (like, oh, I don't know, health insurance? Pension inheritance?). Same-sex couples, even when they are legally married don't get any of those rights. Some of them have argued that the Department is trying to "force" them to get married. I wish the Department would "force" me to get married...oh wait. I AM MARRIED. Legally married. And I still had to fill out an affidavit to get the partner benefits in the Department because my marriage doesn't count.

So pardon me if I lack sympathy.

Oh, and from what I have heard, it is actually conservatives who are pushing this. Our "natural allies" are the unwitting tools of the religious right, who know that allowing benefits to opposite sex partners will not only make all of the benefits run afoul of DOMA, but will make the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO) prohibitively expensive. So we won't be able to receive ANY of the benefits that they could get by a quick trip to Vegas. But they won't lose the ability to get married.

Benefits for gays? Us too, say the unwed
Opposite-sex partners in the Foreign Service say they should be treated the same.
By Paul Richter
LA Times

Reporting from Washington - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton won praise in June after pushing to extend many federal benefits traditionally provided to diplomats' spouses to gay and lesbian partners.

Since then, unmarried heterosexual couples have been lining up to ask for benefits too. They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for policy on federal workers, is weighing such an extension of benefits, U.S. officials say -- to the consternation of conservatives.

"They should have seen this coming," said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who had opposed extending benefits to gays. "It's a Pandora's box."

The family benefits, although a small part of diplomats' overall benefit package, are important to Foreign Service officers. Benefits include paid travel for the partner to and from overseas posts; visas and diplomatic passports; emergency medical treatment; shipment of household possessions; emergency evacuation in times of danger; and education benefits for minor children. Health insurance is not included for gay partners, although spouses are covered.

Foreign Service officers contend such help is only fair, especially given the conditions they face in remote and often uncomfortable posts.

Conservatives who oppose easing the rules cite the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, it defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says that no state shall be required to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

"A good argument can be made that even these relatively limited steps violate at least the spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act," said Peter Sprigg, a fellow at the Family Research Council, which advocates for socially conservative causes.

He said the pressure from unmarried heterosexual couples "illustrates one of our concerns -- that once you open the door to anyone other than married couples, you're beginning a process of the deconstruction of marriage."

Michelle Schohn, spokeswoman for the advocacy group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said her group was cautioned during the closing days of the George W. Bush administration about the consequences of demanding family benefits for same-sex partners.

"If you included opposite-sex domestic partners, you could potentially be running afoul of [the Defense of Marriage Act] by creating this 'marriage light' category," she said.

Nationally, most employers -- including almost all public employers -- that extend benefits to same-sex partners also offer them to unmarried, opposite-sex partners, said Ilse de Veer, a principal in the international consulting group Mercer.

Those that offer benefits to same-sex partners but not to opposite-sex mates typically cite heterosexual couples' option of marriage, de Veer said.

Unwed heterosexual couples in the United States comprise about 10% of opposite-sex couples living together, census data show.

Schohn said her group supported extending benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples. "They're our natural allies," she said.

The American Foreign Service Assn., the diplomats' union, has not yet taken a position, said spokesman Tom Switzer, but it "has heard from a number of members who believe that the same benefits should be extended to opposite-sex, unmarried partners as well."

A senior State Department official said any benefit extension was up to the White House.

"We're prepared to take that step if that's what the White House wants to do," the official said.

In June, Obama signed a presidential memorandum extending family benefits to same-sex partners -- a concept opposed by Bush's administration.

The issue gained visibility in 2007 when the former U.S. ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, quit the Foreign Service in protest over the issue.

Supporters of extending benefits to unmarried heterosexuals include such key Congress members as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village) and the committee's top Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.

Obama's June memorandum omitted health insurance and pension benefits for same-sex partners. Federal officials estimate that including the broader benefits would have cost $56 million in 2010, several times the price of the narrower benefits.

Some legal experts say including the broader benefits could violate the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that Obama has said should be repealed.

A Case for Federal Benefits

As you know, November 18 the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 23-12 to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO), an important bill would grant all federal employees (including those overseas, which is of special importance to LGBT Foreign Service families) an array of domestic partner benefits, include vital health insurance benefits.

In today's Federal Diary in the Washington Post, Joe Davidson discusses that and two recent court cases that make compelling arguments for federal benefits for same-sex spouses:

Rationale builds for same-sex benefits law

Two federal appellate court judges issued separate rulings last week that came to the same result: Uncle Sam must permit employee benefits for same-sex spouses of federal workers.

Though the decisions apply only to same-gender married employees of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and that's a pretty small group even in California, the judges' orders boost the arguments of those favoring legislation that Congress now is considering.

Last Wednesday, the same day one of the orders was issued, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to allow same-sex partners of federal workers to share their employee benefits, including those covering health care, dental and vision services; retirement; and disability. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is considering a similar measure.

Those bills would have far greater reach than the judicial rulings, yet the judges' words provide a strong case from dispassionate sources for the fundamental reasoning behind the legislation -- basic fairness and equal pay for equal work. In Wednesday's opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said, "the denial of benefits violates the United States Constitution" because it is discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The next day, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote: "Karen Golinski has been denied a benefit of federal employment because she married a woman rather than a man." That violates, he added, "this court's guarantee of equal employment opportunity."

The judges also said the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and was repeatedly invoked by Republicans opposing the House committee action, does not prohibit same-sex benefits.

Both Golinski and Brad Levenson, whose case Reinhardt decided, took their claims through the court's Employee Dispute Resolution Plan. It has its own prohibition against sex discrimination, an additional tool for them to fight the denial of benefits. Golinski is an attorney with the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. Levenson is a deputy federal public defender in Los Angeles. Each married a spouse of the same gender during the four-month period when such unions were legal in the state, and they remain legally wed.

Supporters of legislative action argue that blocking benefits for same-sex partners violates the principle of equal pay for equal work. They have comfort in Reinhardt's finding that Levenson suffered a "reduction of his employment benefits." Kozinski reached a similar conclusion regarding Golinski. That reasoning led the judges to grant Levenson and Golinski back pay awards. Levenson also was awarded an amount of money, to be determined, to cover the cost of insuring his husband from this point forward.

Levenson called that "a good remedy," yet one that's "separate, but not equal" because individually purchased health insurance policies are not as good as those secured through a group plan.

In Golinski's case, the Office of Personnel Management was told to rescind directives to insurance carriers that said, according to Kozinski, "Ms. Golinski's wife is not eligible to be enrolled as her spouse under the terms of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program because of her sex or sexual orientation, or that the plans would violate their contracts with OPM by enrolling Ms. Golinski's wife as a beneficiary."

Kozinski's decision included a copy of a Feb. 20 letter from Lorraine E. Dettman, OPM's assistant director of insurance services programs, to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Citing DOMA, Dettman said health insurance programs for federal employees "may not provide coverage for domestic partners, or legally married partners of the same sex, even though recognized by state law."

Dettman's letter came after an earlier ruling by Kozinski in which he ordered the Administrative Office to submit paperwork regarding coverage for Golinski's spouse to Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Not at all pleased with OPM's action, the judge said it assaulted "the autonomy and independence of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government."

Kozinski also found that "even as limited by DOMA, the FEHBP permits judicial employees to provide health insurance coverage to their same-sex spouses." Reinhardt said using DOMA to deny benefits to Levenson's husband was unconstitutional and "violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Though Dettman's letter was written after President Obama took office, it was before his appointees took over OPM. The Obama administration has found itself in the tricky position of defending DOMA because it is the law, while calling for its repeal and strongly supporting the congressional legislation.

"I'm hopeful the Obama administration will honor this order," Golinski said.

A Letter to My Congressman

I wrote a letter to my congressman today, asking him to support the Respect for Marriage Act. Here is what I wrote:

Representative Price,

I am writing to ask that you support the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

My partner and I are residents of NC. We were married in our church, United Church of Chapel Hill, in 2002. We serve the country in the U.S. Foreign Service and are currently posted to Washington, DC.

Passage of this law would mean that we would not be serving our country as second class citizens. Much like African Americans who served this country during World War II while lacking fundamental rights at home, we are keeping faith with our country in the hopes that one day, it will keep faith with us. But as it stands, states can use DOMA to not only not recognize a marriage legal in other states but to deny us the basic rights of visiting our partners while they are in the hospital or inheriting our own joint property should one of us die. DOMA means we, who are in a 10 year long committed marriage, are not entitled to more than 1,000 rights, priviledges and responsibilities afforded to those who marry on a whim simply because of who we love.

Please keep faith with us as we have with you and the country and support the Respect for Marriage Act.

Thank you


I encourage you to write your Congressman as well. You can find out where they stand here. Write them regardless of whether they are yes, no, or leaning in one direction or the other. Tell them you support fairness and equality. Tell them no American should be a second class citizen.

Full National Equality NOW

I am really disappointed that I didn't get to attend the National Equality March on Sunday. It sounds like it was great, the kind of marches I remember from when I first came out in the mid-80s. We were angry and demanded equal treatment. But as tolerance increased, so did many marchers' apathy. "We still aren't equal, but at least most people don't try to kill us any more." Pride marches lately have seemed more like parties than protests. I am not saying there isn't a place for that, just that we need some young blood and good old fashioned activism.

But I had to do to see my grandmother, who is very ill. My wife did march, however, along with a contengient from GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) that included some newly minted Foreign Service Officers. New blood. Good old fashioned activism. It makes me really happy.

I know the GLIFAA folks took some shots in front of the White House, and I'll try to post them when I can.

The Washington Post had a nice editorial today calling for leadership from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue on addressing our issues. There are those who say that those of us calling for full equality now are not as politically aware as those who were present for the President's talk at HRC. But I can assure you, my voice is in there calling for FULL EQUALITY NOW, and I also assure you, as an FSO, I dare say I am at least as politically aware as anyone in the audience.

Leadership on Gay Rights
President Obama isn't the only one falling short.

FULL EQUALITY for gays and lesbians is the civil rights issue of our time. Men and women who want to preserve and protect the ideals of this nation are being booted from the military because of who they are. Same-sex couples who seek the recognition of their relationships that their heterosexual counterparts take for granted are denied the rights and responsibilities that come from civil marriage. Ending these and other forms of institutional discrimination based on sexual orientation requires leadership. Pity there's not enough of it coming from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

President Obama ran as a candidate of change. Perhaps no other community took that to heart more than the gay community. Mr. Obama promised to end "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prohibits members of the military from serving if they are openly gay. He promised to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and denies married same-sex couples more than 1,100 federal benefits available to opposite-sex couples. There's been no visible movement on either pledge.

As he has in the past, Mr. Obama said the right things on gay rights at last weekend's fundraising dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "I'm here with you in that fight" for equality, he said. "For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and we will not -- put aside issues of basic equality." On gays in the military, Mr. Obama mentioned his discussions with the Pentagon, the legislation pending in Congress and stated plainly, "I will end 'don't ask, don't tell. That's my commitment to you." On repealing DOMA, the president said, "I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples."

Frustration with Mr. Obama and the lack of progress in fulfilling his pledges on gay rights were evident at Sunday's National Equality March. But why is he the only target? Overturning "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA require legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) have been content to sit on the sidelines while Mr. Obama takes the hits. This can't continue. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid must exert the necessary leadership in their respective chambers to pass bills the president has promised to sign. Until then, they deserve as much criticism and blame as Mr. Obama for impeding the long march to equality.

I Don't Want to Seem Ungrateful...

...that the President has selected openly gay appointee David Huebner for the Ambassadorship to New Zealand. It is another step, granted a baby step, but at least a step. (Next stop, repeal DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Just a thought).

Even so, he is still picking yet another political appointee. There are plenty of well qualified LGBT Foreign Service Officers of a rank to be named Ambassador. Despite his campaign promise to recognize that the foreign service is a profession and that the number of political appointee ambassadors should be reduced from the historic average of 30%, he is on track to exceed that number by a significant amount. And as we know, while some of the political appointees are well qualified, lots are qualified only by the amount of their campaign contributions (this is true of the appointees of all administrations).

I am sure there are some non-military folks who are qualified to be Admirals and Generals, but we don't make political appointments to those positions.

At any rate, here is the WH Press release:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 7, 2009

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON - Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts:

David Huebner, Ambassador to New Zealand and the Independent State of Samoa
David D. Nelson, Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay

President Obama said, "I am confident that these individuals will represent our nation well in these important roles. I am grateful for their service and look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead."

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:

David Huebner, Nominee for Ambassador to New Zealand and the Independent State of Samoa David Huebner is the head of the China Practice and the International Disputes Practice at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, where he specializes in international arbitration and mediation. Currently based in Shanghai, he has significant experience handling disputes in the Pacific Rim region. Previously, he was a long-time partner and served as chairman at Coudert Brothers. While a resident in California, Mr. Huebner chaired the California Law Revision Commission, served as president of the Los Angeles Quality & Productivity Commission, and taught courses in international business and intellectual property at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law. He has also guest lectured on international topics at several schools in the United States and abroad, and is licensed both as a solicitor in England & Wales and as an attorney in three U.S. jurisdictions. He has been active in non-profits, community organizations, and professional associations such as the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, International Chamber of Commerce Commission on Arbitration, Los Angeles Committee on Foreign Relations, and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). A native of Pennsylvania, Mr. Huebner is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University, where he majored at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is also a graduate of Yale Law School.

David D. Nelson, Nominee for Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay David D. Nelson has served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Economic, Enmic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB) since January 2009 and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of EEB, with specific responsibility for International Finance and Development since June 2008. In those functions, Mr. Nelson has been responsible for providing the Secretary of State with advice on a full range of international economic issues. Mr. Nelson is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service. He has previously served as Executive Assistant to the Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, as Director of the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions, Director of the Iraq Reconstruction Task Force, and as Director of the Office of Monetary Affairs. He has also served on the National Security Council as Senior Coordinator for the Sea Island G-8 Summit, and has been posted abroad in Berlin, Madrid, Bonn, Quito, Montevideo and Merida. Mr. Nelson is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, and earned a Masters Degree in Economics at the University of Maryland.

Government Executive: Obama backs extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

Obama backs extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

By Alyssa Rosenberg
June 17, 2009

President Obama on Wednesday directed the Office of Personnel Management to extend long-term care benefits and family and parental leave to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees, and ordered agencies to conduct internal reviews to identify other benefits that they could extend as well.

"Many of our government's hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic public servants have long been denied basic rights that their colleagues enjoy for one simple reason -- the people that they love are of the same sex," Obama said.

Obama stopped short of granting employees' domestic partners access to health care benefits, saying he legally could not do so, but endorsed legislation that would provide such benefits.

The legislation, known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517) is currently under consideration on Capitol Hill.

"Extending equal benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees is the right thing to do," Obama said. "It is also sound economic policy. Many top employers in the private sector already offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees; those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The federal government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue."

Obama also backed a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the government from offering full domestic partner benefits. "It's discriminatory, it interferes with states' rights, and it's time we overturned it," he said.

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry characterized Obama's memo as "is a first step, not a final step. This is an attempt to get our federal house in order.... I think the gay community, of which I am a member, can be extremely proud that this administration is with us and stands with us on the core issues that we care deeply about."

The memo mentions two specific governmentwide benefits for civil servants: the long-term care insurance program and the right to use sick leave to care for an ailing partner or nonbiological, nonadoptive children. It also lists a number of other benefits for the partners of State Department employees. Obama directed OPM and State to move immediately to provide those benefits.

Berry said while some federal supervisors have been understanding about sick leave use, the president's order would create a uniform policy.

"When I worked at the Smithsonian and my partner passed away in 1996, my supervisor, Connie Newman, extended to me the ability to take leave to handle that situation," he said. "Federal employees will no longer have to rely on whether their supervisor is enlightened or not."

Michelle Schohn, president of the employee group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said it was disappointing that the administration had waited so long to let the State Department act on plans to change policies affecting the spouses of gay and lesbian diplomats when they are stationed overseas. A draft of a plan by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to allow Foreign Service officers' domestic partners access to medical facilities, job competitions and housing and evacuation coverage has been circulating since at least May. But Schohn noted that most Foreign Service officers are assigned to new posts in April.

"From the perspective of people whose lives depend on these changes, the change has seemed to be very slow and tentative," she said.

The memorandum also directs department and agency heads to begin internal reviews to determine if they can offer additional benefits to gay and lesbian employees. Berry conducted such a review as an assistant secretary in the Interior Department during the Clinton administration. It led to the expansion of relocation benefits and counseling services to the domestic partners of Interior employees and the elimination of provisions of the National Park Service's law enforcement standards, including a ban on security clearances for gay and lesbian employees.

Obama gave OPM 90 days to issue guidance on how agencies should implement civil service laws offering protection against discrimination. Berry said the guidance would make clear that in addition to sexual orientation, gender expression and identity cannot provide a basis for discrimination in employment.

"It is the view of the president and the administration that it is a bedrock principle of federal civil service that the employer does not make employment decisions on anything other than the employee's ability to do their job," Berry said.

Schohn said adding gender identity to anti-discrimination policy would be a significant step.

"It is the kind of forward-leaning thing that I think the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community is looking for," she said. "We're looking for our president to tell us that all kinds of discrimination are wrong."

But Schohn also noted that access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is "the big thing."

Health benefits for federal employees became a pressing issue for the administration in January and February, when two California federal judges ordered their benefits offices to process health care enrollments for the partners of two gay court employees. In the past, OPM has said the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from treating same-sex couples in the same way as heterosexual married couples, blocked the agency from extending health care benefits. The judges argued that OPM in fact had the authority to grant access to health care to domestic partners if it chose to do so.

The administration also faces a June 29 deadline to file a brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act in a suit brought by a group of gay federal employees in Massachusetts. Those employees, who are legally married to their partners, say the government has unfairly denied them benefits available to heterosexual married couples. The administration has drawn fire from gay rights groups for a brief defending DOMA in a separate lawsuit in California.

Federal labor unions said they would renew their push for passage of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act in conjunction with Obama's endorsement of the bill. Richard Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, wrote to Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., who sponsored the Senate and House versions of the legislation, to say the union "stand[s] ready to assist you in helping this bill become law." Baldwin appeared with Obama at the White House Wednesday when he signed his memo.